Josephus on Jesus: Part 3
The Testimonium Flavianum
The second passage has become known as the Testimonium Flavianum. It is a longer, much more hotly contested passage. It is found before the James passage, and it states:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed
one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of amazing
deeds, a teacher of persons who receive truth with
pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the
Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate
condemned him to the cross, the leading men among
us having accused him, those who loved him from the
first did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them the
third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken
these things and a myriad of other marvels
concerning him. And to the present, the tribe of
Christians, named after this person, has not disappeared.
(Antiquities 18.63-64)[21]
As before, there are several arguments both pro and con that are raised in favor of or against the authenticity of the Testimonium. We will look at them in turn, stipulating to the manuscript problem since it has been addressed already.
The Content. The content of the Testimonium is the single biggest source of contention for scholars. Since it is a foundational issue, it is best addressed first. There are three theories regarding the authenticity of this passage - that it is authentic in its entirety; that it is inauthentic in its entirety; or that the truth lies somewhere in between. “The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it [is the third option] - that one or more Christian scribes ‘touched up’ the passage a bit. If one takes out the obviously Christian comments, the passage may have been rather innocuous.”[22] In the passage above, the words placed in italics are likely later Christian insertions into Josephus’ account. Without them, the passage might read as follows:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a
doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive
truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of
the Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the
cross, the leading men among us having accused him,
those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so.
And to the present, the tribe of Christians, named after
this person, has not disappeared.
Bart Ehrman concludes:
If this is the original form of the passage, then Josephus
had some solid historical information about Jesus’ life:
Jesus was known for his wisdom and teaching; he was
thought to have done remarkable deeds; he had
numerous followers; he was condemned to be
crucified by Pontius Pilate because of Jewish accusations
brought against him; and he continued to have followers
among the Christians after his death.[23]
It is a small minority that advocate either of the other two options, total authenticity or complete inauthenticity. Therefore, I feel confident siding with the majority of scholars that we have a core of Josephus’ original writing in the Testimonium, and it likely resembles the manuscripts we have minus the obviously Christian interpolations mentioned above.
The Context. One of the reasons Michael Martin argues against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that “it appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative.”[24] G.A. Wells completes this line of thought by telling us “its removal leaves a text which runs on in proper sequence.”[25] However, it is “typical of Josephus’ style to include short stories as ‘digressions’ in the course of an ongoing narrative, triggered in some aspect by the main story, but not themselves part of the flow.”[26] In this case, Josephus was discussing Pilate’s rule in Judea. Since Pilate crucified Jesus, it is natural that Josephus would choose this point to insert a passage to that effect.[27] Besides, the passage without the interpolations now fits much better into the overall context of Antiquities 18. As John P. Meier notes, “Precisely these three Christian passages are the clauses that interrupt the flow of what is otherwise a concise text carefully written in a fairly neutral - even purposely ambiguous - tone.”[28]
Lack of a Testimonium Parallel in Jewish War. “That the passage is, indeed, interpolated,” says Louis H. Feldman, “seems indicated by the fact that in the statement in the War about the deeds of Pilate, which parallels this in the Antiquities, there is no mention of Jesus, despite the fact that the length of the account is almost as great.”[29] This argument gets little mileage when we consider that Antiquities as a whole is more detailed than War. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that Jesus is not mentioned there. Additionally, more than twenty years had passed between the two. There would have been considerable growth of the Christian movement in those two decades, enough that it would warrant Jesus’ inclusion in the later work.[30] Furthermore, at the beginning of the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus himself related how, “after finishing the Jewish War, he had intended to write a larger work on the whole history of the Jewish people.” [31] At the very least this implies Josephus intended Antiquities to be a much more detailed account, so perhaps Pilate’s cruci-fixion of a troublemaker should come as no surprise.
The Silence of Early Christians. Our first encounter with the Testimonium comes in the fourth century with Eusebius, and he includes all the Christian elements. Because of this, Doherty asks, “If a figure of the stature of Josephus had said the things contained in the alleged ‘authentic’ Testimonium, can one really believe that every Christian commentator for over two centuries would regard nothing in it as worthy of mention?”[32] Doherty makes a good point. How is it that a passage from Josephus that identifies the Messiah and makes resurrection claims is overlooked until the fourth century? The answer is fairly straightforward. Doherty seemingly wants to keep the Christian elements because it makes it easier for him to make his case that the entire passage is a wholesale interpolation. It is no wonder Eusebius now includes it in his work; just look at the things it has to say about Jesus. But we have already demonstrated it is most probable Josephus’ original Testimonium contained none of these elements. With that in mind, it is easier to understand why we do not see the Testimonium referenced until later. In its pared-down version it is a very neutral statement that would have little apologetic value to the early church.[33]
Furthermore, Bart Ehrman points out that typical pagan accusations against Jesus were “that he was born out of wedlock to a peasant Jewish woman who was seduced by a Roman soldier; that he was an unskilled carpenter; that he could not control his temper; and that he died a shameful death on a cross. Nothing in the possibly original statement of Josephus seems relevant to any of these charges.”[34] It is not surprising, then, that we do not hear of the Testimonium until later. Given the information supporting the authenticity of the Testimonium, it is no wonder that James Charlesworth concludes: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus,” providing “corroboration of the gospel account.”[35]
Next, our conclusion.
[21] Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 160.
[22] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 60.
[23] Ibid., 61.
[24] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 48.
[25] Wells, The Jesus Myth, 202.
[26] R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1986), 28.
[27] Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 195.
[28] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 61.
[29] Feldman and Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 57; see also Wells, The Jesus Myth, 203-04.
[30] Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 196; see also Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 88-89.
[31] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 260.
[32] Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, 209, author’s format maintained.
[33] Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 196.
[34] Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, 62.
[35] James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 96-97, quoted in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 195.